Just look at the overall reputations, individuals developed there, and ideas and principles from the schools. I don't think that Auburn and George Mason University would rank as well as say Harvard or University of Chicago and other elite institutions.
Just look at the overall reputations, individuals developed there, and ideas and principles from the schools. I don't think that Auburn and George Mason University would rank as well as say Harvard or University of Chicago and other elite institutions.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
Wrong. What Krugman's was stating is the "Broken Window" fallacy which can and has be proven false time and time again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMcGTZ6Mc_c
Yay for the Krugman's Hooligan's!
So according to this "Broken Window" fallacy that Krugaman's was attempting to push with his statements one would expect that the Iraq War (or the on going Afghan War) should of spurred on a dramatic rise of long term economic activity in the US. Of course this is not the case and Krugman was being his usual self in pushing his politics in place of actual economic reality.
Last edited:
airdata
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2010
- 4,987
- 0
- 0
He's the only person I've seen on the board who acts like a right winger in that he's an ass, and openly supports obama.
airdata
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2010
- 4,987
- 0
- 0
You guys are all retarded if you base your racist claims on him saying " blacks " and talking about the number of blacks who get locked up. He does this in the context of showing that our system is skewed toward locking up black people more than white people for the same offenses. Absolutely nothing racist about that.
But hey.. instead of referring to mysterious 20-30 year old " newsletters" how about some real quotes (w\ full context of course ) We'll settle this real fast : D
Actually he wasn't pushing the' broken window fallacy' at all. In fact in many columns he's said just how silly the broken window idea is. The broken window thing draws its problem from destroying productive things simply to replace them, basically making busywork. What Krugman was pushing was expansionary fiscal policy where people would make useful things. They are very different.
As for pushing politics over economic reality, in terms of this financial crisis Krugman has been right over and over again, and the Austrians have been wrong over and over again. Where are the bond vigilantes? Nowhere to be seen. Where is hyperinflation? Non-existent. Where are countries recovering economically due to austerity policies? Nowhere. Ron Paul is an exceptional fool when it comes to economics, and for some reason no amount of wrongness shakes his religious faith in how he thinks the world is supposed to work. It's probably best that Austrians don't accept empirical evidence, they would probably shoot themselves if they did.
GaiaHunter
Diamond Member
- Jul 13, 2008
- 3,731
- 428
- 126
Which one of those models predicted the dotcom bubble, the house bubble or the problems caused by excess sovereign debt?
The problem of models is that those models are built based on what you know. Then you adjust those models so they give you expected results and if they give unexpected results one has 2 choices: change the model variables until it gives the expexted results or admit you don't understand enough and still need to learn more about the subject.
Krugman point was people doing individual sacrifices towards the greater good. The problem is people won't do that if the greater good is a government bureaucratic structure and financial/economic institutions. If it is an alien invasion or a war against a megalomaniac, people have a higher predisposition to do it.
Basically the alien invasion scenario is an event where a president can make grand speechs and rally the population, instead of a speed where he needs to say "we are broke, we need to make sacrifices, we need to bail out the financial institutions, etc".
About the institutions, well, in economics there are always excuses, its the
markets, its the chinese, its the rich people, its the poor people, its the lazy people, we didnt enough, too much regulation, to few regulation, so basically in many cases tose economists aren't boud by competition rules - the only economists selected are the ones defending a certain theory and those economists only select economists that share the same vision, as it happens in most other domains of society, except politicians instead of being submited to competion, they just rotate place.
It is not surprising the mainstream economic schools are the ones that support higher intervention/more power from governments.
His point had nothing to do with individual sacrifices for the greater good. Like, literally nothing. It had to do with spurring stimulative government investment. Sadly, it is difficult for governments to do this on useful things like roads, bridges, and schools, but easy to do on war. That's a pretty obvious and uncontroversial statement that was taken out of context by people who can't refute his argument on the merits.
People won't be "productive" when government steps in and removes their incentive to generate wealth in order to sustain the size and scope of government. Be it through polices that prompt wars or "Green Jerbs For EVERYONE!!" which solely rely increasing spending and thus increasing the demands for government revenue to be generated to sustain these polices.
This is flat out wrong. Guys like Peter Schiff (and Ron Paul) were pointing out the impending collapse as long (if not longer in the case of Ron Paul)then Krugman.
This is an absurd demand. You want over night results for damage (through epically massive debt) that took years and years to be set into place and that simply is not going to happen period. Just like the mortgage bubble and credit debacle any result depending on the action which nations will take (austerity or trying re-inflating a popped bubble via more spending) will necessitate a lengthy time period for the actual results to pan out.
The only fool here are individuals who cling to economic theories which have lead us to this point of economic world wide crises and massive unsustainable debt but then turn around that we need more of the same debt building policies.
Last edited:
guyver01
Lifer
- Sep 25, 2000
- 22,135
- 5
- 61
if that helps you sleep at night while supporting a racist candidate... more power to you.
but it isn't him saying "blacks"... its him making a racist - generalizing statement:
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Now lets turn our hardworking Baker into a rat fink like Bernie Madoff.
And suddenly our noble vandal who throws rocks at Bernie's windows, becomes the only way to get Bernie Madoff to stimulate the economy.
The idea that Bernie Madoff or the very wealthy will buy a new US made suit with his money is absurd, when they are too busy shipping US jobs overseas and ginning up new wars in which only they profit, is more the track record of the 1%.
As their very policy is horrible for those in the top 97 to 99% percentile also. Because those folks depend on US consumers to subsidize their business's. And when US consumers have less and less income to spend with many unemployed, the people who formerly spent money in such local business's like our original Baker can no longer afford to do so so they suffer too.
In short Krugman is right and the video is stupid.
And suddenly our noble vandal who throws rocks at Bernie's windows, becomes the only way to get Bernie Madoff to stimulate the economy.
The idea that Bernie Madoff or the very wealthy will buy a new US made suit with his money is absurd, when they are too busy shipping US jobs overseas and ginning up new wars in which only they profit, is more the track record of the 1%.
As their very policy is horrible for those in the top 97 to 99% percentile also. Because those folks depend on US consumers to subsidize their business's. And when US consumers have less and less income to spend with many unemployed, the people who formerly spent money in such local business's like our original Baker can no longer afford to do so so they suffer too.
In short Krugman is right and the video is stupid.
In Europe. Is Krugman arguing that people will loan us money at or near a loss forever? Perhaps Europes debt crisis has a bit to do with our low bond prices? Maybe?
I never was a hyperinflationist, hard to get much of an inflationary impact when the money just exists as 1s and 0s and no one is borrowing/using it. We have seen more inflation than a lot like to admit though.
Austerity measures work a whole lot better when you do them BEFORE the bond vigilantes get to you. If you wait until after (such as the countries you are talking about) it is exponentially more painful. When the cost of servicing your debt shoots the moon it wipes out a lot of the cuts you just made meaning you must cut more just to have an actual impact. On the flip side, how did spending a lot more money than they made for an extended period of time work out for them?
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Even if you wanted to say an alien invasion is the same thing as the broken window fallacy, the point is irrelevant since it's a generalization, and Krugman didn't distinguish between, say, an earth-ending alien invasion and one in which, say, mankind is united. To generalize with such an inane metaphor as the logical window fallacy is just faux intellectualism. Krugman's reasoning is entirely sound; it's quite reasonable to say that economic activity is spurred (on the net) if unique, motivating factors are put into place. Broken windows probably wouldn't inspire the same sort of production you'd get if your life is on the line.
Ron Paul has been saying the same thing for 30 years; literally, I'm not kidding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6epCVUppjJM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMe_7-hmHHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgCq75g_M7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCnzr566RR0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTljuxZYJ9I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgK0vHZtwno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c9G_XuIX_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e9sPjflrxc
At some point he had to be right, lol.
And Schiff has been proven wrong over and over again. Like Paul, he has been saying the same thing for years, since 2001 in Schiff's case, and of course eventually he's going to be right, lol. A previous post of mine on Schiff's monstrously wrong predictions is quoted below:
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Which economic model claims to predict short-run events like the housing bubble? Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm not sure what you mean by "predicting" sovereign debt, that's a matter of public record that's tracked daily so there's nothing to predict.
IS-LM is one of many models that describes human behavior quite accurately and vividly (though of course very, very basic). Businesses investing more at lower interest rates than at higher interest rates and GDP expanding as a result are basic, long-run macroeconomic principles.
This is a pointless statement. Everything is based on what you know.
There's nothing unsurprising about which mainstream economics are mainstream because they are supported by data, by actual research, by contingent valuation methods (surveys), et al. It's not because of some conspiracy to stay close-minded to what actually works. Believe it or not, life isn't that interesting that people would actively conspire to be close-minded to different ideas despite all available evidence. But maybe that's why Austrians never make any headway into policy; they know no one will take them seriously without verifiable data. Not much of a shock that people laugh at those who shun the scientific method.
GaiaHunter
Diamond Member
- Jul 13, 2008
- 3,731
- 428
- 126
How many roads do you need?
How many schools do you need?
There is a point where you need to produce other stuff because schools cost money (read work from other people to build those, maintain them, their wages, to teach in them, etc).
And who is going to supply the materials? And with the higher demand for those materials, aren't other activity sectors getting hit? And what tools will it require? Will industries shift towards production of those tools? Etc, etc.
Krugman defends that governments need to intervene to pick up the lower expenditure from the private sector (that is panicking). So what will people do when they see the governments intervening? Save even more because they see the governments panicking, so it must be a really panicky situation.
The thing is if government investment is so good for the economy why isn't it is as always as possible, even during non recession periods?
That's why they reject empirical evidence. They know that their economic theories are ridiculous and thus they reject the real world as proof that their 'theories' don't work.
It's easy to follow something if you believe that it doesn't even have to be true. That's Ron Paul's economics for you.
Let's go through the Ron Paul list:
1. He's a massive racist.
2. He believes in a school of economic thought that refuses to associate with the real world.
3. He is anti-Constitution.
4. He is anti-civil liberties.
He's a moron and a vile racist old troll of a man.
Last edited:
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
Your lies are so distorted, and far removed from reality it hilarious. Anti-Constitution, and anti-civil liberties LOL
Are you aware of the current state of US infrastructure? When you ask how many roads we need, the answer is: a shitload.
From the questions you are asking I don't think you understand the point. The government is employing people to make things. If you need materials to make a school, you can similarly employ people to create such materials. The important point is generating useful work from a population that is otherwise sitting at home producing nothing, but continuing to consume.
Government investment is always good for the economy to some limited extent as there are certain projects that the private sector is unlikely to pick up on their own like the internet. In better economic times however, government spending creates what is called a 'crowding out' effect. Basically it means that when you're close to full employment, the government is just employing people and resources that could have worked somewhere else, making the government action largely pointless and likely inefficient. In the current situation we're in now we have massive numbers of people unemployed and huge amounts of resources sitting around not being used. There is no danger of crowding out in this situation, which is why government investment is good now, but not always good.
You see, Paul argues for civil liberties, but he only believes that they apply against the federal government. He thinks that states can take a giant shit on your civil liberties. In fact, he thinks that you have no rights under the Bill of Rights when it comes to states. As such, he is for the least amount of civil liberties of any presidential candidate.
And for a guy who pretends to love the Constitution, he sure wants to amend the hell out of it, likely to promote his racist agenda.
Ron Paul. He's this vile old racist troll of a man who hates the Constitution, despises civil liberties, and believes in an economic theory that has nothing to do with the real world.
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
By the way it doesn't matter because the GOP establishment hates him more then they hate the Mitster.....
/Pulling up lawn chair
/popping popcorn
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
You are either so ill-informed, or such a liar that's it's actually pretty sad. Then again, thinking about your past posting history, you're probably just a habitual liar, and definitely a troll.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter